Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Carpets

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Bajaj Carpets

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 03, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41689

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41689
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B., M Ravindran
Decided On: Feb 03, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Bajaj Carpets

Excerpt

.....submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of duty as the clearance have been made after issuing of necessary invoices and making the necessary payments of duty. consequently, a lenient view in the matter may be taken. in view of the facts of circumstances of this case, i am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and drop the proceeding on this account but at the same time caution the party to be more carefully in future. the seized goods have already been released provisionally to the party and on enquiry it has been ascertained that the same have been cleared on payment of duty. whether they had incorrectly availed and utilised modvat credit of rs. 18,44,740.00 on capital goods. 14. in view of board's circular no. 277/111/96-cx.6 dated 2-12-96 (f.no. 267/99/96-cx.8) clarifying the matter there is no merit left in the allegations made in the show cause notice and the proceedings on this account relating to incorrect availment/utilisation of modvat credit are hereby dropped.2. the present appeal contends that entry of daily production in rg-1 is a statutory requirement and the commissioner is in error in not confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. during the hearing of the case, learned jdr has brought to our notice the following decisions on the subject:media video ltd. v. commissioner of c. ex. new delhiblue blends (india) ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, ahmedabadnizam sugar factory ltd. v. collector of central excise and ors. 1987 (27) e.l.t. 40 (a.p.) 4. kirhskar brothers ltd. v. union of india and ors. we find that the larger bench of this tribunal has held in the case of bhillai conductors ltd. v. commissioner 2000 (125) e.l.t. 781 that confiscation of manufactured goods found in the factory of production is not attracted. in the present case, there is not even an allegation of removal of non-accounted goods or effort to remove un-accounted goods without payment of duty. in such a factual situation, the commissioner's order.....

Full Judgment

1. Revenue's grievance in this appeal is that the Commissioner did not take penal action against the assessee for failure to enter daily production in the RG-1 record, and for taking ineligible Modvat credit on capital goods. The findings of the Commissioner on these two issues are as under : 13. I find that the party have themselves admitted that RG 1 Register was not written for nearly one and a half months. The reason they have given against this is that the concerned officer was busy and occupied with some additional work. Moreover, they have also submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of duty as the clearance have been made after issuing of necessary invoices and making the necessary payments of duty. Consequently, a lenient view in the matter may be taken. In view of the facts of circumstances of this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and drop the proceeding on this account but at the same time caution the party to be more carefully in future. The seized goods have already been released provisionally to the party and on enquiry it has been ascertained that the same have been cleared on payment of duty.

Whether they had incorrectly availed and utilised Modvat credit of Rs. 18,44,740.00 on capital goods.

14. In view of Board's Circular No. 277/111/96-CX.6 dated 2-12-96 (F.No. 267/99/96-CX.8) clarifying the matter there is no merit left in the allegations made in the show cause notice and the proceedings on this account relating to incorrect availment/utilisation of Modvat credit are hereby dropped.

2. The present appeal contends that entry of daily production in RG-1 is a statutory requirement and the Commissioner is in error in not confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. During the hearing of the case, learned JDR has brought to our notice the following decisions on the subject:Media Video Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. New DelhiBlue Blends (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, AhmedabadNizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors.

1987 (27) E.L.T. 40 (A.P.) 4. Kirhskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

We find that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held in the case of Bhillai Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 that confiscation of manufactured goods found in the factory of production is not attracted. In the present case, there is not even an allegation of removal of non-accounted goods or effort to remove un-accounted goods without payment of duty. In such a factual situation, the Commissioner's order cannot be faulted.

3. In regard to the Modvat credit, it has not been doubted that credit was due to the respondent. It is also the submission that credit amount eventually has been reversed and subsequently taken. The Commissioner cannot be faulted for not taking penal action in this factual situation also.

4. In view of our findings above, there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal. It is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Bajaj Carpets Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B., M Ravindran

Service Tax Capital goods penal action Relating to Has been R and D Was due